Talk:Robert A. Taft

did not pay attention to domestic communism

In McCullough's Truman on page 538 it says Taft accused David Lilienthal of being "soft on the subject of Communism" On page 766 McCullough says Taft "admitted publicly he was egging McCarthy on" Ricardianman (talk) 02:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that Taft's McCarthyism is white washed in this article, which reads in general as apologetics for Taft.

International Standards?

The article suggests that the war crimes trials were "ex post facto" and violated "international standards." That is not true.

First of all, the prohibition on "ex post facto" laws is an American innovation in jurisprudence. The British Parliament, for example, is not limited in the type of legislation that it may pass, and no British court has any authority to declare any Act of Parliament "unconstitutional" for any reason. Whether a British Parliament would enact an "ex post facto" law is a political question.

Secondly, the war crimes trials were not "ex post facto" at all. Article 228 of the Treaty of Versailles, by which the First World War was concluded, provided as follows:

"ARTICLE 228.

"The German Government recognises the right of the Allied and Associated Powers to bring before military tribunals persons accused of having committed acts in violation of the laws and customs of war. Such persons shall, if found guilty, be sentenced to punishments laid down by law. This provision will apply notwithstanding any proceedings or prosecution before a tribunal in Germany or in the territory of her allies.

"The German Government shall hand over to the Allied and Associated Powers, or to such one of them as shall so request, all persons accused of having committed an act in violation of the laws and customs of war, who are specified either by name or by the rank, office or employment which they held under the German authorities."

Although the United States did not ratify the Treaty of Versailles, it concluded a separate treaty with Germany on August 25, 1921, whereby the United States secured all of the rights, but none of the obligations, it would have had under the Treaty of Versailles.

Thus, Hitler and his Nazi thugs were on notice that if Germany started another European War, it might be held to account for its actions.

John Paul Parks (talk) 14:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Taft said the trials violated American principles. -- The US did not ratify Versailles and has a strong rule against ex post facto laws. Rjensen (talk) 22:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Simon Weisenthal made the arresting observation that the worst (and capital) Nazi crimes were committed in Poland, not in Germany. The Polish Government-in-Exile was well aware of the circumstantial evidence pointing towards mass extermination of Jews and others on Polish soil in specially designed deathcamps (not hard-labor internment camps.) This was clearly a gross violation of pre-existing Polish law against kidnapping and homicide. The Polish government in exile in London issued a white paper to the United Nations (the Atlantic Alliance) that they intended to prosecute the Nazi miscreants for these criminal deeds. And the Poles were a force to be reckoned with. They supplied an air force that managed to escape to England. They supplied pilots that gave the margin of victory in the Battle of Britain. They supplied the stolen specimen of the Enigma cipher machine. They supplied the infantry to overrun the fortress atop Monte Cassino. They eliminated collaborationists. They even liberated one of the deathcamps (the so-called Goose camp in Warsaw) using a stolen Panzer tank. The Poles had a legitimate and functioning government that indicted the Nazi invaders for their numerous capital crimes in Poland. It was not "ex post facto" law by any stretch of the imagination! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.241.142 (talk) 03:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The absurdity of Taft's position was anticipated by none other than Adolf Hitler, no less! Hitler said he was impressed by the pusilanimous treatment toward the Ottomans after they had nearly exterminated the Armenians in 1915. He said their evil deeds were practically forgotten (by the 1930s.) He correctly predicted that he and his Nazi brethren could carry out the extermination of the Jews and do so without being punished. This was the epitome and apex of appeasement! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.39.36 (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Taft turned a blind eye to the overarching principle called the Golden Rule. (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.) The Jews were condemned to extermination by the Racial Hygiene laws of the Nazis. Were these Racial Hygiene laws ex post facto laws? Of course they were. Jews and others cannot choose their ancestors or modify the choice of marriage parents that their ancestors have made. Penalizing them retroactively was therefore ex post facto law! What goes around comes around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.71.98 (talk) 01:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The article does NOT suggest 'that the war crimes trials were "ex post facto" and violated "international standards." ' It only says that Taft thought that, which he did. The "dubious-discuss" comment should be removed. cwmacdougall 13:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree, and I'm glad to see that the "dubious-discuss" comment was removed. There's a clear difference between (accurately) noting that Taft believed that the war crimes trials were "ex post facto", and claiming that the article itself is arguing that point, which it clearly isn't. There is no debate that Taft criticized the trials (it is a part of the historical record), and noting that fact in a Wiki article about Taft is entirely appropriate. Debating whether Taft was accurate in his criticisms of the war crimes trials is beyond the scope of an encyclopedia article, which are usually dedicated to a neutral point of view. 2602:304:691E:5A29:3885:EFF7:77FC:A1C1 (talk) 04:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Untitled

If your going to fix the page, fix the page. Be bold. Don't leave stuff there if you know that it is wrong, please just fix it and then explain in here on the talk page, not in the body of the article, please. (Other references suggest multiple ballots at this convention but what you say from your source really makes more sense. Please just put it in the article and delete the rest. If others feel it is wrong, it will be changed or at least discussed here.) Rlquall 20:03, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I changed the phrase about his being an isolationist. He had isolationist tendencies but had strongly supported the U.S. inclusion in the League of Nations after W.W. I. He also supported intervention if it had direct affect in U.S. interests and if the action was formally submitted to the Senate as the Constitution stipulates. He later supported the U.N. until it's formation made clear that the Security Council would have veto power. At that point he withdrew his support, not because of isolationism, but because as a world body it was pointless if a member could void an action on it's own. TKA

I wonder why there is nothing about the Taft Bill, for he is known for his famous "flip", when, as an ardent conservative republican, he decides to support Federal Aid to school bill? New user: Minche, June 25, 2006

education bill is mentioned (it did not pass). He was isolationist leader in 1933-41 period.

MacArthur 1952?

My inclination was also to remove the sentence about Douglas MacArthur from Robert Taft's article (your edit). However, a Google search provided an apparently valid source for the info, which I instead added.

Did you check the source before your removal, and note its quote from a book by Pennsylvania State University historian Stanley Weintraub?

What associated event(s) do you believe did not happen? --Adavidb 08:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is threefold: 1) it mis-states what happened -- Taft asked MacArthur to be his VP, and MacArthur probably would have accepted if Taft won nomination. 2) It strongly suggests that MacArthur was a candidate. he was not and Weintraub does not claim he was; 3) it speculates on things that never happened, which is entertaining but not enyclopedic. Rjensen 09:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

While not a declared presidential candidate, MacArthur did receive ballots for nomination as the Republican candidate during the 1952 United States presidential election process. --Adavidb 09:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

template

The template on the right of the article is a bit "off" in that the term "In office" doesn't seem associated with his death. An ill-informed person might read that he is indeed *IN office* today. Perhaps it could say "died in office" or something more obvious. Reboot 15:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Disregard...I get it now Reboot 15:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Paleoconservative?

• As a U.S. senator, he was given the nickname "Mr. Republican"; he was the chief ideologue and spokesperson for the paleoconservatism of the Republican Party of that era.

Did "paleoconservatism" as such even exist then? It wouldn't be appropriate to label the subject with anancronistic political terms. Unless we have a source for this assertion it should be removed or substantially re-written. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Senator

Taft was not enthusiastic about U.S. ground forces. He supported the Navy and a strategic reliance on nuclear delivery by air power. He effectively allowed the Army to be gutted, and even though Eisenhower was critical of him for that at the time, later when Ike became President little was done to reverse the effects of Taft's influence in that regard. In took until the advent of the JFK administration to begin rebuilding the Army (1961 & 62 were the pivotal years). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.106.18.161 (talk) 03:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Isolationist???

I strongly object to the extremely liberal and inaccurate use of the term "isolationist" on Taft's page. Every time it is used, it seems to be in context of Taft's non-interventionist foreign policy, which has little to do with isolationism, the latter term more frequently pertaining to international travel and commerce. I don't understand why this term has been so aggressively misappropriated lately, but with the distinguishing and entirely separate term non-interventionism disappearing from the radar, it's getting harder and harder to find phraseological nuance in these articles for political figures and movements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buddy-Rey (talk • contribs) 18:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Robert A. Taft Institute of Government Honors Fellow

Some years ago (1970s) as a graduate student at the University of Mississippi, I was elected as an Honors Fellow of the aforementioned Institute. Today, it seems to have disappeared off the face of the Internet. Does it still exist?

Royalhistorian (talk) 04:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Another Robert Taft

Robert W. Taft invented the Taft equation in organic chemistry. Should we make a disambiguation page or add him to the introductory note? Crystal whacker (talk) 15:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

there are a lot of Robert Tafts who don't have Wiki articles. Until they get their own article there is no nned for disambig --very few people will be mislead into thinking this Taft is a chemist. Rjensen (talk) 15:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for answering my question. Crystal whacker (talk) 03:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Doings with McCarthy

In the essay on Truman in the book "The American Presidency", the essayist writes about Taft encouraging McCarthy's witch hunts, while disdaining him in private. The Wikipedia article is very favorable towards Taft, so I think it would be wise to look into this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oofloom (talk • contribs) 03:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Death and legacy

In late May 1953, Taft transferred his duties as Senate Majority Leader to Senator William Knowland of California,[citation needed]

I can confirmed this has occurred, as I was unable to change the citation needed so I am placing it here. I sound confirmation of this in the Book One Step from the White House: The Rise and Fall of Senator William F. Knowland (9780520211940): Gayle B. Montgomery, James W. Johnson. Published by University of California Press, 1998. Page 132. Sen. Taft called Sen. Knowland to act as 'Floor Leader'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cousincreep (talk • contribs) 05:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: Change article name from "Robert Taft" to "Robert A. Taft"

Reasons for the name change all boil down to common usage for distinguishing him from others:

1. As noted above, there are lots of "Robert Taft"s, including his son (Jr.). Why confuse matters?

2. Encyclopædia Britannica lists his name as: Taft, Robert A(lphonso).

3. Profiles in Courage titles the chapter for him as "Robert A. Taft". So does the Institute named for him (listed above). So does https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/People_Leaders_Taft.htm .

Thank you. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 11:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 03 December 2014

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Everyone involved appears to be happy with the current name as well as the dab page at Robert Taft. Favonian (talk) 10:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

---

Robert A. Taft → Robert Taft – The recent "technical request" was done at lightning speed, else I would have objected to it. This was not the subject of any discussion at all, and ought to be the subject of a full move request instead of dodging around it. – 209.211.131.181 (talk) 02:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm the one who objected to this, and I was initially all set to write up a rationale for keeping this at Robert Taft. However, some research and Google Ngram have convinced me that, during his lifetime, more high-quality sources call him "Robert A. Taft" than just "Robert Taft". The situation after that is a bit confused by his son and grandson. I would normally have suggested Bob Taft as an alternative; that's how he was best known in his own lifetime. However, his grandson is nowadays the better-known "Bob Taft". As such, I still don't like the way this move was conducted, but I no longer object to the present title. I would ask that this remain open in case anyone else has a comment about the naming of this article; there's no emergency, after all. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 17:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• • OK. Thank you. For completeness, I include in this section the previous section, whose title reads:

Proposal: Change article name from "Robert Taft" to "Robert A. Taft":

Reasons for the name change all boil down to common usage for distinguishing him from others:

1. As noted above, there are lots of "Robert Taft"s, including his son (Jr.). Why confuse matters?

2. Encyclopædia Britannica lists his name as:

Taft, Robert A(lphonso).

3. Profiles in Courage titles the chapter for him as "Robert A. Taft". So does the Institute named for him (listed above). So does https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/People_Leaders_Taft.htm .

Thank you. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 11:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

And thank you, Anthony Appleyard, for "doing it proper" not only as to the move but the appropriate format at the request-for-title change page. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 02:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose "Robert Taft" should be a disambiguation page. This article should probably include a "Sr." or "I" with "A." or "Alphonso". There are so many of them (Robert Taft I, II, III of the 20th century, Robert Taft I, II of the 17th century, Robert F. Taft) and several are prominent. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
• Robert Taft now redirects to Taft#People. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
• NOTE someone turned "Robert Taft" into a disambiguation page -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 04:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Against immigration of twenty thousand Jewish children?

A pro-refugee Czech charity hosts on its pages a photocopy of the letter from June 7, 1939, by the senator Taft to Mrs. Lois J. Cort of Cleveland Heights, Ohio, which they claim is originally from Yad Vashem (I have not been able to find the letter on the website of Yad Vashem) http://www.gen21.cz/wp-content/uploads/Taft1.jpg and http://www.gen21.cz/wp-content/uploads/Taft2.jpg Perhaps the photo was made directly from the display stand in Yad Vashem? Ceplm (talk) 06:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

That was a form letter sent out by his office. It's identical to the letter of 28 June, 1939 contained in Taft's Papers volume 2 pp 52-53. It never came to a vote primarily because public opinion was 83 percent opposed to any increase in immigration,. President Roosevelt would not support it. See details Taft himself was a leading Republican Zionist strongly in favor of Israel. He worked with Senator Wagner to promote unrestricted Jewish immigration to Palestine and the creation of a Jewish state there. [Patterson biography p 280-83] Rjensen (talk) 07:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, was that Zionism post-2WW or before? Of course, after the Holocaust even somebody mentioned in the Profiles of Courage could not believably stand against Zionism. Ceplm (talk) 10:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Patterson says Taft's Zionism began before the war, and his collaboration with Senator Wagner began around 1944 and continued after the war. Rjensen (talk) 10:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

According to his chief biographer Patterson, one of the main reasons Taft survived his re-election bid in 1944 was due to his high standing among Ohio's Jewish voters, especially in Cleveland. On election day Taft lost Cleveland by 96,000 votes, while Dewey, the GOP presidential candidate, lost the city by 112,000 votes. An analysis showed that Taft ran ahead of Dewey and the rest of the state's GOP candidates in the Jewish wards of Cleveland and its suburbs. Given that Taft won the election by fewer than 18,000 votes, his standing among Ohio's Jewish voters may well have saved him from defeat.2602:304:691E:5A29:6116:91F3:2F3F:A99F (talk) 02:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion; decision = keep

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• RobertATaft83rdCongress.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:22, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The nomination was withdrawn by the person who made it because the photo is in the public domain--it comes from a government publication. Rjensen (talk) 04:33, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Robert W. Welch Jr.

Shouldn't we mention Taft's connection with John Birch Society co-founder Robert W. Welch Jr., if only briefly, in order to help make this article more properly encyclopedic? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 00:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Hypothesis about the cause of Taft's cancer

Shouldn't we mention in this article the hypothesis that Taft's cancer may have been caused by a radium tube planted in the upholstery of his Senate chair (this idea promulgated by John Birch Society co-founder Robert W. Welch Jr.)? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 00:42, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Definitely. If an editor could mention this and find some sources, this'd be great. AlaskaGal~ ^_^ 10:34, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Taft's picture

Taft's picture says it was taken in 1953, but https://media.gettyimages.com/id/1264589279/photo/1948-republican-national-convention.jpg?s=2048x2048&w=gi&k=20&c=0xwRrklKxDY4h0QYw0mCwdlhK1CQx7fVwKpWZxllsQE= that link shows the picture being used in the 1948 RNC. Is their any sources that prove the picture was taken in 1953, did Taft just pose the same two times? Sorry for bothering anyone. Chrilly (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

A photo's being included in a congressional directory in 1953 doesn't mean it was necessarily taken that year. Likewise, its use at the RNC convention five years prior doesn't mean it was taken that year either. I've changed the caption to "c. 1948" with a comment about its use that year. —ADavidB 08:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)